Is Space Travel Worth the Investment When Earth Needs Attention?

[iKwak]

I never understood space programs and the need of NASA. Someone help me.
What is the point of spending billions of dollars to get an expensive craft out of Earth and various space programs?
What is water exists on Mars? What is we find living organisms on other planets?
Shouldn't the U.S. and other super country worry about the planet Earth that we live in? Spend the money to discover new technologies- how to reduce global warming, reduce traffic congestion and air condition, expedite cancer research, start an agriculture program in third countries and lot more.

 

[Artman]

Originally posted by iKwak
I never understood space programs and the need of NASA. Someone help me.
What is the point of spending billions of dollars to get an expensive craft out of Earth and various space programs?
What is water exists on Mars? What is we find living organisms on other planets?
Shouldn't the U.S. and other super country worry about the planet Earth that we live in? Spend the money to discover new technologies- how to reduce global warming, reduce traffic congestion and air condition, expedite cancer research, start an agriculture program in third countries and lot more.

The solution to some of the items you listed may be found in exploration of other worlds.

In another thread in this section we were debating the importance of astronomy as a science. Some of the points made were that much information about global warming and greenhouse effect was discovered as a result of studying Venus.

One reason for study of Mars is that we are concerned that if it had water in as much abundance as we have it on earth, where is it now? What caused the oceans on Mars to dry up? Is it something we can prevent from happening on Earth or is it our destiny as well?

Cancer research has benefited from study of other worlds. Some of the techniques used to improve Hubble space telescope images has been used in early tumor detection in mammagrams.

Satelites are used to monitor agriculture growth trends and may some day help predict earthquakes. They also aid in communication, and navigation.

 

[cragwolf]

Well, some good points from Artman, but the reason we do space exploration is not to cure cancer on Earth, not to eliminate poverty, not to save frogs from extinction. We do it out of curiosity, the desire to know. No astronomer I knew became an astronomer because he wanted to save the world. Of course, as with most human endeavours there are going to be side benefits, or spin-offs to space exploration, which will help solve some of humanity's problems. But space exploration would continue with or without these spin-offs.

So, iKwak, I ask you ... why do you spend money on a TV, CDs, DVDs, books, the internet, a bicycle, a car, going out to restaurants and cafes, etc etc? Why not spend that money on supporting or sponsoring a child living in poverty? Why not simplify your life down to the bare necessities, and spend the rest of your salary on helping the sick and the poor? Why should we collectively do anything different to what you're doing?

 

[Phobos]

Here's the other discussion Artman mentioned...
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11882

Welcome iKwak.

Why do astronomy & the associated things? It's part of human nature! (curiosity, exploration, etc.)

Why would a government spend billions of dollars on it? Because this kind of science & technology goes hand-and-hand with political, military, and economic power. Strong & successful science/technology programs are a point of national pride and earn respect from the other countries of the world. Rockets and satellites have obvious military applications. The Apollo moon landing was funded to such great degrees because the US wanted to win the space race with the USSR (democracy fighting communism through pride & demonstrated power). High science & technology translates to economic benefits (consider the telecommunications industry) and higher standards of living. Note that many countries are trying to join the Space club (China, Japan, Israel, Brazil, Nigeria,...) so they can give a boost to their countries too.

The scientist may be primarily interested in finding water on Mars, but the government is only willing to foot the bill because it is in the country's best interest (prestige, technological advances, etc.). Note that the government stopped paying for SETI because they felt its cost outweighs its benefit (that program is continuing under private funds). The government frequently cuts back NASA's outer planets/deep space programs (like a mission to Pluto or Jupiter's moons) but seems to be more comfortable funding higher visibility projects closer to home (e.g., shuttle, space station, Earth observation, satellites).

 

[ScionPunk352]

I'll start off with a discussion that me and a kid at my school had about why spend so much money on the space program. It started off with a simple question, would you rather donate money to a religious institution, or a medical institution. He said religious, and I asked why, he said because at a hospital you have to pay thousands of dollars for surgery. i simply said in reply, and at a church you will get surgery for free. Then he proceeded to saying some stuff about the space program, and I simply told him...if you are going to be yelling at us about the space program, you might wish to check your own personal choices on where your money is going, because my money would go to a medical and space institution much sooner than a religious institution. This is not only because I am athiest, but also because I believe that if we manage to discover our roots, the ones that were buried in the cosmic dusts that formed our solar system, and planet, then we will have accomplished one of our goals as human beings. The desire to learn, as well as the desire to have knowledge is pretty much the biggest reasont that he are doing the space travel, because we want to know how we as human beings came to be, and why Earth is one of the few planets in our knowledge that is perfect for substaining life.
-Bob Smith

 

[Phobos]

some excerpts from President Bush's speech about his new space initiative...

...[NASA], and the dedicated professionals who serve it, have always reflected the finest values of our country -- daring, discipline, ingenuity, and unity in the pursuit of great goals.
...
America is proud of our space program. The risk takers and visionaries of this agency have expanded human knowledge, have revolutionized our understanding of the universe, and produced technological advances that have benefited all of humanity.
...
America has ventured forth into space for the same reasons. We have undertaken space travel because the desire to explore and understand is part of our character. And that quest has brought tangible benefits that improve our lives in countless ways. The exploration of space has led to advances in weather forecasting, in communications, in computing, search and rescue technology, robotics, and electronics. Our investment in space exploration helped to create our satellite telecommunications network and the Global Positioning System. Medical technologies that help prolong life -- such as the imaging processing used in CAT scanners and MRI machines -- trace their origins to technology engineered for the use in space.

 

[ScionPunk352]

So basically the reason for space travel...in the long run...is to help save our earth. Without space travel, we wouldn't be able to do all of the experiments that we have been doing, and things wouldn't be as good as they are right now. Space travel is the final frontier as they say in star trek...lol...

 

[Njorl]

It is not just scientific curiosity though. You could answer more questions with the same money if we eliminated manned space flight and spent the money on other scientific ventures. It is irrational, crotch-grabbing, rooster-strutting, arrogant pride that accounts for a lot of it.

People who claim we don't know what benefits there might be as a reason for doing it have never written a research proposal. If I write a proposal for even $100,000 without saying what might be gained, I will be dismissed with much anger and yelling. But sticking a guy on Mars for no reason, hell that's cheap at $500 billion.

Njorl

 

[LURCH]

We are going because we must go. That is human nature; we are incapable of not going.

 

[ZZ Boson]

Thank you Mr. President and may God bless the Sun, the Moon and especially Mars.
And bless those millions of competitive little Sino buggers who helped point your way to the cosmos.
Please earmark my tithing to Faith-Based Space Exploration.

 

[Arcon]

Originally posted by iKwak
I never understood space programs and the need of NASA. Someone help me.
What is the point of spending billions of dollars to get an expensive craft out of Earth and various space programs?
What is water exists on Mars? What is we find living organisms on other planets?
Shouldn't the U.S. and other super country worry about the planet Earth that we live in? Spend the money to discover new technologies- how to reduce global warming, reduce traffic congestion and air condition, expedite cancer research, start an agriculture program in third countries and lot more.

I'll respond to this from the point of view of a cancer survivor. It's not like if we don't explore space that this money will be diverted to the programs that you suggest. In all likelyhood people would rather keep that money in their pocket and remain satisfied with the amount of money going into the areas you suggested. But let's suppose that's not the case and that money got diverted to those areas. As such there'd be more cancer research. To me, personally, that would mean that if I come out of remission then there is a greater chance of surviving it now. How much greater? Not that signifigant really. The picture the difference in probablility being about the same as me getting killed in a car accident this year. While I can't speak for anyone else I consider that an acceptable risk.

One question that people never ask themselves is this: Fine! Okay! I was cured of cancer. Now what? What do I want to do while I'm hear? Personally I'd like to see people walk on Mars before I die.

All my life I've looked forward to the new and wonderful things science will discover by the act of exploration. Disovery does not mean that we know where the answers lie and we simply walk over there and retrieve them. It means that we explore everywhere and we get lucky and make discoveries mostly by accident.

 

[Hurkyl]

I'm not so sure that diverting the money from the space program to other things would still permit discovery of the same terrestial benefits.

Without the immediate need to research technologies related to space travel, people aren't going to research technologies related to space travel (duh!), and more than likely, all of the technologies related to space travel that are useful terrestially would not be discovered (or be discovered much later).

*shrug*

Blame capitalism.

 

[Adrian Baker]

Perhaps we should have just stayed in an African rift valley a million years ago and avoided the danger and waste of effort in seeing what was over the horizon... or perhaps not.

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Adrian Baker
Perhaps we should have just stayed in an African rift valley a million years ago and avoided the danger and waste of effort in seeing what was over the horizon... or perhaps not.

Had we started trying to send a man to Mars 25 years ago, we would not have made very much progress. We would certainly not have robots there now if we had spent the effort on manned flight before.

What do we give up by sending humans? Let's make a direct comparison to a future unmanned effort. Instead of researching ways to keep a person alive on a prolonged space trip, you research robotics and artificial intelligence. A manned mission requires people, the means to keep them alive, and the fuel to bring them back, in addition to the insturments needed for any scientific endeavor. The unmanned mission would leave behind the unnecessary elements - food, water, air, people, extra feul - and increase the laboratory capacity.

So, the unmanned mission will be more effective and it will have better fruits of ancillary technology (AI and robotics vs space living). That leaves glory as the only reason for sending people.

There's nothing wrong with glory. I'd like some. Neil Armstrong, the USA and the human race as a whole acheived glory in that "small step". It was glorious because we did not know we could do it until we did it. That is not true about walking on Mars. We know we can do it. How is it glorious? If we decide to do it, it is only a matter of time and money, like digging a big ditch. Why bother?

Njorl

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Njorl
What do we give up by sending humans?

Hubble. Its the single most important/successful scientific instrument in history.

Re: where the money goes. I'm a big fan of the space program and we need to keep it. But the space program gets a tiny amount of money these days and it needs to be used carefully to get the most out of it.

 

[Njorl]

So Russ, had you heard this before posting?

http://www.brucegarrett.com/brucelog_2004_1_1.htm#b22

Or are you prescient?

Njorl

 

[Adrian Baker]

Originally posted by Njorl


...What do we give up by sending humans? Let's make a direct comparison to a future unmanned effort. Instead of researching ways to keep a person alive on a prolonged space trip, you research robotics and artificial intelligence. A manned mission requires people, the means to keep them alive, and the fuel to bring them back, in addition to the insturments needed for any scientific endeavor. The unmanned mission would leave behind the unnecessary elements - food, water, air, people, extra feul - and increase the laboratory capacity.

So, the unmanned mission will be more effective and it will have better fruits of ancillary technology (AI and robotics vs space living). That leaves glory as the only reason for sending people.

Njorl

How much would it cost to develop a robot with the thought capacities and mobility of a Human? It hasn't been done and can't be done without spending billions. Fortunately, we have the technology to send one of these miracle thinking, moving objects (ie a human) to Mars and all it needs is some food and shelter.

As for costs, Shuttle is basically past its sell by date and a new space transportation system is needed. The costs involved will be massive. This will be needed whether we send robots, or humans and their supplies, to Mars and the Moon. Unless by robots you mean the small limited ineffective things that they have sent recently?

So what's the difference?

We either spend a huge amount trying to replicate humans with robotics, or we can spend huge amounts getting humans there to do the job!
I'm sure that the public that pay for it all would prefer the human option.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Njorl
So Russ, had you heard this before posting?

http://www.brucegarrett.com/brucelog_2004_1_1.htm#b22

Or are you prescient?

Njorl

Acutally, I had (they announced a couple of days ago that the servicing mission would be cancelled, just not what the implication was - but its not hard to gues). But that wasn't really what I meant anyway: I meant if we had put out efforts into manned exploration of Mars 25 years ago, we never would have had a Hubble. I guess the statement I quoted from you, you were looking forward - I was looking backwards.

Looking forwards though, I fear for the Origins Program.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Adrian Baker
How much would it cost to develop a robot with the thought capacities and mobility of a Human? It hasn't been done and can't be done without spending billions. Fortunately, we have the technology to send one of these miracle thinking, moving objects (ie a human) to Mars and all it needs is some food and shelter.

That really is a non sequitur - the perfect example of why is what happened last week with Spirit: There was a problem with the planned exit ramp so humans directed Spirit to rotate and take a new one. For a human to be in the driver's seat instead of directing it from Earth would cost 2 to 3 orders of magnitude more - the combined Spirit and Opportunity missions cost a combined totalof about $500,000,000 - roughly equal to a single shuttle launch.

As for costs, Shuttle is basically past its sell by date and a new space transportation system is needed. The costs involved will be massive. This will be needed whether we send robots, or humans and their supplies, to Mars and the Moon. Unless by robots you mean the small limited ineffective things that they have sent recently?

So what's the difference?

The difference is we won't be building a replacement for the Shuttle. The new vehicle will be a shuttle in a truer sense of the word - it won't carry much cargo.

We either spend a huge amount trying to replicate humans with robotics, or we can spend huge amounts getting humans there to do the job!

Nope. That isn't the choice at all. The choice is: spend a tiny amount of money to do things with robots or do other, less useful, and hugely more expensive things with humans.

 

[Adrian Baker]

It is a matter of scale though isn't it? If Humans are going to go, then yes, it will cost more, but only because the whole operation will be bigger. Without a mission like that, we are just going to have small robotic explorers over and over again. I'm not sure of the worth of that, especially as well over half of all recent missions to Mars have failed.

Also, what had we discovered about the Moon before it was decided to embark on a mission to get there - not a lot!

My point is really that without a manned Mars mission, all that will happen is countless small missions that just replicate each other. Cheaper yes, but what will this achieve? If the Mars mission is done properly and a manned base set up, then far more will be discovered - maybe even an asteroid destined to collide with Earth! Now that WOULD be worth discovering.

 

[LURCH]

Originally posted by Njorl
"What do we give up by sending humans? Let's make a direct comparison to a future unmanned effort. Instead of researching ways to keep a person alive on a prolonged space trip, you research robotics and artificial intelligence..."
"...So, the unmanned mission will be more effective and it will have better fruits of ancillary technology (AI and robotics vs space living)."
Njorl

I dissagree with the breakdown, although certainly both approaches have their benifit. An unmanned mission will teach us a lot about building a better robot, but a manned mission's spinoff technologies will be in the life sciences. Learning to builkd a robot that can travel through space makes us better at building robotd here on Earth, but learning to keep paople alive in space makes us better at keeping people alive down here.

The technological developements necessitated by a manned mission will teach us a lot about environmental issues (which some might argue are more important than AI and robotics issues). It will indeed be more expensive, but I think the benefits to biology and the medical sciences, as well as psychology, ae worth it.

Besides, as I said before, we're humans; we cannot help but go.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Adrian Baker
It is a matter of scale though isn't it? If Humans are going to go, then yes, it will cost more, but only because the whole operation will be bigger.

Certainly, but how do you want to measure it? Today it costs $10,000 per pound to put an object in orbit (not counting the cost of the object. If we could get that cost down to $1,000 by upping the volume 10x does that really help us much?

 

[LURCH]

Originally posted by russ_watters
That really is a non sequitur - the perfect example of why is what happened last week with Spirit: There was a problem with the planned exit ramp so humans directed Spirit to rotate and take a new one.

I think that particular incident does more to support Adrian's statement than to refute it. It took an entire day to get the rover turned around by guiding it from Earth. If a human had been standing on that platform and looked down to see a problem with the ramp, he simply would have turned and walked down the other ramp. The delay would have been 2 or 3 seconds, rather than 24 hours.

Humans deal with novelty better than robots. I believe the amount of good science we get out of each mission will vastly improve with humans on site.

 

[Adrian Baker]

...and I just heard on the news that NASA has lost contact with it now!

We should spend a lot and send humans, rather than waste time and taxpayers money with small Robotic missions that discover very little and have an alarming failure rate.

 

[FZ+]

We should spend a lot and send humans, rather than waste time and taxpayers money with small Robotic missions that discover very little and have an alarming failure rate.

But for humans, any fail rate at all would be alarming, and severely damage the entire Mars exploration program.

 

[Integral]

There are 2 separate conversations in this thread.

One is why go to space at all. The only real reason I can come with is for my grand children's grand children. We must realize that the Earth has a finite amount of resources. Over the last 100yrs we have harvested the majority of those that are easy to get to. The first oil wells in Pennsylvania were surface pools. How many surface pools of oil do you suppose are left in the world? If we want our descendent's to have a chance at what we consider a reasonable standard of living we must learn to mine the resources of the Solar system. If we fail to achieve that goal, we doom our decedents to retreat to 1850s technology simply because there are insufficient resources for anything else.

Now we have established that there is indeed a reason to go to space, the second topic of the thread. Do we send humans or robotic missions. We must begin with robotics and remote sensing. I do not see any advantages in sending humans. They are wasted space, wasted mass and can serve no useful task at this stage of the game on the surface of Mars or even the Moon. Can anyone tell me of any meaningful science done by the Astronauts on the Moon? They went a long for the ride and brought back a suitcase full of rocks. Sounds like tourists to me.

Tourists may indeed be the only rational for sending men to Mars or the Moon.

Adrian, why do you have so little faith in the capabilities of scientists and engineers to develop a series of robotic missions to answer all questions we have about the surface of Mars? Cannot we do geological explorations, even mining robotically and with remote sensing. This may lead to improvements in AI but that is a long way down the road. Initially the humans with the knowledge can sit on the Earth controlling the machines that gather information. Then at night the humans go home to a warm bed and their spouse. Do we really want to risk the lives of people who are capable of doing real science on inter planetary missions? For the foreseeable future this sort of trip will be a gamble, a single micro meteor striking a inter planetary vessel in the wrong spot spells doom for all aboard. I see no reason to risk years of education and human experience for no good reason.

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Adrian Baker
...and I just heard on the news that NASA has lost contact with it now!

FWIW, contact has been regained.

 

[Nereid]

Entrepreneurship, freedom, etc

Seems to me we're leaving a key aspect of both threads (thanks Integral) unaddressed. Russ kinda touched on it - $10k/kg (well, he said 'pound', but we'll forgive his lapse) to get something into LEO - which fundamental law of physics says it has to be so high? Give capitalism a decade or two and it'd be sure to come down, by maybe an OOM or more.

Then there's the risk for human explorers, death and all that. Just 'cause it's dangerous and several people get killed, there's no law stopping you going mountain climbing or hang gliding, or ... So long as you're a big girl, why shouldn't you choose to try to go to the Moon on your own? Of course, you'd need at least as much money as Richard, Steve, or Larry, but it's their life, and their money, so why not?

Doesn't mean they should be allowed to own anything up there (despite that crazy Australian), no more than you can own a nice summer cottage on Mt Erebus, let alone a hectare or three under the Ross Ice Shelf.

Give those who want to do the exploring in person some tax breaks, and a few surplus ICBMs ... even the Shuttle! ... and let them get on with it. If they get filthy rich running 'Lunar Tours, a global franchise that delivers a more satisfying buzz than McD ever did!', three cheers!

That'll free up taxpayer $$ for robots and science. The ROI (return on investment) will be astronomical.

 

[Adrian Baker]

Originally posted by Integral
There are 2 separate conversations in this thread.

One is why go to space at all. The only real reason I can come with is for my grand children's grand children. We must realize that the Earth has a finite amount of resources. Over the last 100yrs we have harvested the majority of those that are easy to get to. The first oil wells in Pennsylvania were surface pools. How many surface pools of oil do you suppose are left in the world? If we want our descendent's to have a chance at what we consider a reasonable standard of living we must learn to mine the resources of the Solar system. If we fail to achieve that goal, we doom our decedents to retreat to 1850s technology simply because there are insufficient resources for anything else.

Now we have established that there is indeed a reason to go to space, the second topic of the thread. Do we send humans or robotic missions. We must begin with robotics and remote sensing. I do not see any advantages in sending humans. They are wasted space, wasted mass and can serve no useful task at this stage of the game on the surface of Mars or even the Moon. Can anyone tell me of any meaningful science done by the Astronauts on the Moon? They went a long for the ride and brought back a suitcase full of rocks. Sounds like tourists to me.

Tourists may indeed be the only rational for sending men to Mars or the Moon.

Adrian, why do you have so little faith in the capabilities of scientists and engineers to develop a series of robotic missions to answer all questions we have about the surface of Mars? Cannot we do geological explorations, even mining robotically and with remote sensing. This may lead to improvements in AI but that is a long way down the road. Initially the humans with the knowledge can sit on the Earth controlling the machines that gather information. Then at night the humans go home to a warm bed and their spouse. Do we really want to risk the lives of people who are capable of doing real science on inter planetary missions? For the foreseeable future this sort of trip will be a gamble, a single micro meteor striking a inter planetary vessel in the wrong spot spells doom for all aboard. I see no reason to risk years of education and human experience for no good reason.

Why such little faith?, because of the present failure rate for a start.
But, what will it achieve if they are successful in the future? We get some chemical analysis of a few rocks and some subsoil - wow.
If anything useful is found (one of the sensible reasons for exploration that you give above), it will be of no use to us as we will have no way of getting it back to Earth... because we haven't developed rockets sufficiently powerful to transport mining or transport equipment there!
To get man to the Moon, the Saturn 5 rocket was developed. We have NOTHING similar now, and all these little robot missions mean that there is no development whatsoever of large rockets. Yes the costs of space flight now are horrendous, but how is it going to get cheaper if we just keep sending the same old stuff up to Mars with the same old technology?
The Earth was opened up to trade and development when ships developed better sailing technology, the motor car revolutionised local transport when the model T ford came along. Without a manned mission, our AI will develop, robotics will develop, but not the ONE thing we need to open up space - big cheap rockets. Who will develop these without a manned mission?

 

[Integral]

Adrian,
Most of your arguments are good reasons for NOT sending men. Yes, we must develop stronger rockets. The sad part of it is, that most of the knowledge that got America to the Moon was held in the heads of a few men. They left behind little decent documentation and we are having to learn that technology over again.

It is clear that we must have larger payloads and more capable equipment on the surface of the planetary targets. This is true even for robotic missions. We must continue with the smaller missions and payloads where failure means only the loss of hardware. That loss is offset by the advancement of our knowledge and experience which can be applied to the next mission. As with any scientific experiment repetition is the key to learning. Before a man is sent to Mars we must be able to launch and return with absolute confidence. No unexplained lose of communications. No unexplained failed missions, each mission must be accomplished with scientific assurance and precision.

Once this is accomplished we can then start sending tourists. I still say that is the only real reason to send a human into the depths of space.

Our first goal for mining the resources of the solar system would be a solar farm on the surface of the moon. The goal of course would be to transmit energy from the moon to earth. For this we will need huge improvements in photo-voltaic technology. The initial experiments could be done robotically. Perhaps in the future,when we have extensive solar cell fields on the moon, men would be needed for maintenance. I see no replacement for a good technician.

Unfortunately with our current state of knowledge a mission with men would have no room for anything else. A suitcase full of Martian rocks is poor return on the cost of a Martian mission.

 

[FZ+]

I think we are all convinced already, but there is another reason to go into space: for the science.

A great number of experiments can only easily be carried out in space, requiring no gravity and a high vacuum. And cosmology is an essential part of fundamental physics as most of the new, deep physics requires observations of situations that are just impractical on earth. Looking at supernovae, CMB, frame dragging and so on tells us much about the laws of the universe, which also work on Earth. As as for global warming research and so on... Much of that data came from, you guessed it, satellites.

 

[Adrian Baker]

Originally posted by FZ+
I think we are all convinced already, but there is another reason to go into space: for the science.

A great number of experiments can only easily be carried out in space, requiring no gravity and a high vacuum. And cosmology is an essential part of fundamental physics as most of the new, deep physics requires observations of situations that are just impractical on earth. Looking at supernovae, CMB, frame dragging and so on tells us much about the laws of the universe, which also work on Earth. As as for global warming research and so on... Much of that data came from, you guessed it, satellites.

And how did they repair the Hubble space telescope when it was discovered that the mirror had a design fault...? They sent HUMANS to repair it!

Integral, your point about:

Before a man is sent to Mars we must be able to launch and return with absolute confidence. No unexplained lose of communications. No unexplained failed missions, each mission must be accomplished with scientific assurance and precision.

..is a non starter. What technology is 100% fail safe? Let's stop flying planes, driving cars, walking down the road...

When problems occur in space, humans are ingenious beings. Look at the Apollo 13 mission. How many of the failed Mars missions would have remained as failed missions if Humans had been there to carry out repairs as needed?

 

[Integral]

The Apollo repair was carried out with duct tape and luck, the only reason it was necessary was because there WERE humans on board. While no technology is perfect we did not start by building 747s either. We started low and slow and worked our way up. There is still much to be learned about Mars and the journey there, a single all your eggs in one basket mission is a recipe for disaster.

Further the technology needed for the robotic missions is way cooler then that needed to build a bigger air tight box.

I think this repair underway argument is way over rated. As I have said before BECAUSE the the payload is devoted to supporting the tourists there will be limited analysis tools available and there will be NO REAL test equipment. Any repair will have to be directed by EARTH BASED humans as it was in APOLLO 13. So if it is a failure similar to what is now happening with Spirit it will mean humans dead on the surface of Mars. If human ingenuity is required to complete the mission it was a failure. I certainly hope "Well you can figure that out when you get there" is not part of mission planning.

We must understand these failures and be able to travel to Mars and back with scientific precision before a human ever leaves the surface of the planet.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Adrian Baker
And how did they repair the Hubble space telescope when it was discovered that the mirror had a design fault...? They sent HUMANS to repair it!

And I suppose you propose leaving one astronaut up there with the telescope, looking through a viewfinder, repositioning manually and send down sketches of what he sees?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by LURCH
I think that particular incident does more to support Adrian's statement than to refute it. It took an entire day to get the rover turned around by guiding it from Earth. If a human had been standing on that platform and looked down to see a problem with the ramp, he simply would have turned and walked down the other ramp. The delay would have been 2 or 3 seconds, rather than 24 hours.

Nope. The decision process works the same either way: call your team of engineers and discuss it for a day. The Apollo 13 crew nearly died because they couldn't react faster than that. Just diagnosing the problem took hours during which time their craft quite literally bled to death.

The only reason you wouldn't discuss it and simulate it is because the humans don't have as much time to waste (and die faster, as Integral said). In a mission where time wasn't critical (a long-term colony) you really would keep the decision making process the same.

For Spirit, they could have sent the command right away to rotate the craft. But why would they? It doesn't gain them anything by rushing. Time really isn't that critical.

...and I just heard on the news that NASA has lost contact with it now!

We should spend a lot and send humans, rather than waste time and taxpayers money with small Robotic missions that discover very little and have an alarming failure rate.

Our failure rate with Mars probes has been roughly 1 in 3. Setting aside for a moment FZ+'s quite valid point about humans and failures, the economics doesn't make sense either. The total cost for the two landers was $820 million. We could send a thousand for about the same cost as sending a single manned mission.

Scientifically, the vast majority of the benefit of space exploration has come from unmanned missions simply because robots do things and go places people can't.

Russ kinda touched on it - $10k/kg (well, he said 'pound', but we'll forgive his lapse) to get something into LEO

$10,000 a pound is the usual quote I hear.

Can anyone tell me of any meaningful science done by the Astronauts on the Moon? They went a long for the ride and brought back a suitcase full of rocks. Sounds like tourists to me.

Ding, ding. I'm glad they went, but it was entirely a political exercise.

Then there's the risk for human explorers, death and all that. Just 'cause it's dangerous and several people get killed, there's no law stopping you going mountain climbing or hang gliding, or ... So long as you're a big girl, why shouldn't you choose to try to go to the Moon on your own? Of course, you'd need at least as much money as Richard, Steve, or Larry, but it's their life, and their money, so why not?

The risk in the shuttle was calculated before the program began at an extimated 1 catastrophic failure per 100 missions and that was deemed acceptable (a test pilot barely flinches at those odds). So far, its been pretty close. A Mars crew would jump at the chance to risk their lives on a 1:10 failure probability. Clearly though, that is not acceptable politically.

Yes the costs of space flight now are horrendous, but how is it going to get cheaper if we just keep sending the same old stuff up to Mars with the same old technology?

Recent Mars probes far exceed the capabilities of past ones. And we haven't actually sent all that many either. There is nothing old about it.

And how did they repair the Hubble space telescope when it was discovered that the mirror had a design fault...? They sent HUMANS to repair it!

At $500 million per servicing mission, it'd be cheaper to send up a new one ever 5 years.

How many of the failed Mars missions would have remained as failed missions if Humans had been there to carry out repairs as needed?

I don't know, but with only a half dozen or so failures, its pocket change compared with a manned mission to send up a new robot probe. Spirit/opportunity are a great example. $810 million for a probe - and a twin!

We must understand these failures and be able to travel to Mars and back with scientific precision before a human ever leaves the surface of the planet.

I wonder if our current plans take that into account. Sending a dozen probes to the moon, each building on the experience of the last takes only a couple of years (and let's not forget, the manned program was a series of small steps as well). The same learning curve for Mars would take several decades. Cutting out the testing to save time would be a very bad idea.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Integral
One is why go to space at all. The only real reason I can come with is for my grand children's grand children. We must realize that the Earth has a finite amount of resources. Over the last 100yrs we have harvested the majority of those that are easy to get to. The first oil wells in Pennsylvania were surface pools. How many surface pools of oil do you suppose are left in the world? If we want our descendent's to have a chance at what we consider a reasonable standard of living we must learn to mine the resources of the Solar system. If we fail to achieve that goal, we doom our decedents to retreat to 1850s technology simply because there are insufficient resources for anything else.

Dunno, Integral, I think its more likely we'll find other ways than mining in space. We do have an essentially limitless source of energy at our disposal and the only reason we aren't using it is its a little bit more expensive than using non-renewable resources.

 

[Adrian Baker]

Originally posted by Integral
The Apollo repair was carried out with duct tape and luck, the only reason it was necessary was because there WERE humans on board. While no technology is perfect we did not start by building 747s either. We started low and slow and worked our way up. There is still much to be learned about Mars and the journey there, a single all your eggs in one basket mission is a recipe for disaster.

Because humans were on board, NASA were able to diagnose and say how to fix the problem. This helps the learning process. What have we learned from the failed Beagle mission? Nothing! No one knows what went wrong, so how do we 'improve' on this?

I think this repair underway argument is way over rated.

I don't!

 

[selfAdjoint]

Integral,

The Apollo repair was carried out with duct tape and luck,

Don't knock duct tape. It worked. And the ability to improvise is exactly my point.

the only reason it was necessary was because there WERE humans on board.

The "if it breaks, throw it away" philosophy is bad engineering and bad administration. Whatever happened to "Make it so!"

While no technology is perfect we did not start by building 747s either. We started low and slow and worked our way up.

Yes, we started with Mercury, then Gemini, then Apollo -- then we quit.

There is still much to be learned about Mars and the journey there,

Agree absolutely. I'm not talking about the President's initiative, but about eventual travel and even colonization of the Moon and Mars.

a single all your eggs in one basket mission is a recipe for disaster.

And write that philosophy large, leaving all the human species on one planet is equally a recipe for disaster.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Lets see, population of the planet in 1928 ~ 2 Billion...by the eighties ~4 billion...by the ninties ~ 5 billion...now...past 6 Billion and climbing...Hummm, how many square feet of surface area (usable) are there, available, on the face of a planet 70% covered in water??

Really good articles, in some of the past issues of the Journal Science, concerning population growth figures, and our immediate collective futur...

Need some more 'elbow' space, anyone?

(If we don't start soon enough...and you know the rest)

 

[Integral]

N

Because humans were on board, NASA were able to diagnose and say how to fix the problem. This helps the learning process. What have we learned from the failed Beagle mission? Nothing! No one knows what went wrong, so how do we 'improve' on this?

It is a stretch to call the Apollo 13 band aid, which barely allowed the crew to return alive a repair. A repair would have allowed them to complete the mission. I don't think those of you pounding human intervention theme truly understand the complexity of the equipment involved nor the technical knowledge and equipment required to complete a REPAIR. As a technician repairing moderately complex tools in a wafer fab, I may be closer to the real world then you. The only way to learn the cause of the failure of Spirit or Beagle is to attempt to land another robotic mission nearby and examine the carcases.


We did not start with Mercury, we started with the Wright Flyer, and many died on the way to a 747. Now, however when you get in your car it starts with scientific precision, when you get in an airliner it takes off and lands with scientific precision. Are there failures, yes, but there is always a well understood cause. We do not have planes simply falling out of the sky due to unknown causes. The more trips to Mars we can make the more likely we are to find the reason for the failures. Once again an all your eggs in one basket huge human carrying mission is not only a waste of resources it is simply stupid.

I am not really concerned about the cost in human life, there will always be fools willing to die for such glory. I am more concerned about sacrificing scientific knowledge simply to be able to say "We did it"

As soon as men are included in the mission we will have to leave behind invaluable analysis tools due to payload restrictions. I say send the tools leave the men behind, they serve no purpose. If the best you can come up with is so they can "fix" things then indeed you have only given a reason for them NOT to go.

 

[Sikz]

*cough* Havn't you noticed that we can't survive on Earth forever? We have:

1) There are asteroids and such- while the probability is low that a significant one will hit, given enough time it will.
2) Right now our environment may be getting screwed.
3) Human population is growing exponentially... We can't do that forever in a limited space (Earth).

No species can survive indefinitely if they stay on one planet. We have to go to space in order to survive- and it's better to start now than to look up at the huge burning asteroid in the sky and say "I knew we should have built that moon colony!".

Now before we get to the point where space travel is NECESSARY (when we are facing an inability to continue as we are on Earth alone), there are the extra benefits noted by so many others in this thread. Plus there are things to mine, riches... Same reason we went to America.

 

[Nereid]

Can we start to quantify some of our discussion (thanks Mr Parsons)?

Cost of an Apollo mission: $?? million
Cost of Clementine (or virtually any robot one) mission: $? million
Cost of a Mars mission (Spirit, Mariners, Beagle, ..):
Estimated cost of a human mission to Mars:
Estimated historical cost of building a Hubble-type observatory that didn't need the Shuttle to fix it (this is pure revisionism):
...

If we can agree on the basic cost blocks, we can construct scenarios and do OOM cost estimates. Isn't this what engineers do for a living? Russ, show us the way!

 

[Vosh]

Originally posted by iKwak
I never understood space programs and the need of NASA. Someone help me.
What is the point of spending billions of dollars to get an expensive craft out of Earth and various space programs?
What is water exists on Mars? What is we find living organisms on other planets?
Shouldn't the U.S. and other super country worry about the planet Earth that we live in? Spend the money to discover new technologies- how to reduce global warming, reduce traffic congestion and air condition, expedite cancer research, start an agriculture program in third countries and lot more.

The pay is good for those doing it and the rank and file are easily separated from their money. Why were those technicians hooping for joy when Spirit landed? Job security.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

As much as we can learn from robots, we can learn more about ourselves in the challenges of accomplishing the tasks, ourselves.

 

[Integral]

As far as human Physiology goes, we have learned about all there is to learn from our years aboard Mir and and now SSI. As far as challenges and human bravado go, isn't there plenty of death wish heroics left on earth? Why should we spend billions so some wanta be hero can rocket to the surface of Mars, simply to repair his craft so he can return? Makes no sense. The men capable of doing any real science will be sitting on Earth receiving transmitted data whether it be gathered by a robot or a hero. The hero will add nothing to mission other then reducing the scientific payload.

 

[Integral]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Dunno, Integral, I think its more likely we'll find other ways than mining in space. We do have an essentially limitless source of energy at our disposal and the only reason we aren't using it is its a little bit more expensive than using non-renewable resources.

Ya' know I have always thought mining was an obvious reason for going to space. But when I get down to details, I cannot think of anything worth the expense that could be mined from space. We do not need minerals we need energy. Energy is freely available from low Earth orbit or the moon.

Speaking of energy, the Solar energy constant of Mars will be way smaller then that of earth, so collecting solar energy will be even more difficult on Mars then Earth. So in order to establish a colony on Mars we will need to find a significant source of energy on Mars. It simply will not be economically feasible to ship energy sources from earth.

 

[cragwolf]

Originally posted by Vosh
The pay is good for those doing it and the rank and file are easily separated from their money. Why were those technicians hooping for joy when Spirit landed? Job security.

Fortunately, this sick corporate mentality hasn't taken over scientific organisations just yet.

 

[timejim]

Originally posted by iKwak
I never understood space programs and the need of NASA. Someone help me.
What is the point of spending billions of dollars to get an expensive craft out of Earth and various space programs?
What is water exists on Mars? What is we find living organisms on other planets?
Shouldn't the U.S. and other super country worry about the planet Earth that we live in? Spend the money to discover new technologies- how to reduce global warming, reduce traffic congestion and air condition, expedite cancer research, start an agriculture program in third countries and lot more.

Personally, at this stage in the chaos of the human race I am against spending monies on such useless projects as this. I mean, suppose they find that Mars is full of diamonds, or gold, or whatever, how on Earth could you ever get it back to earth? You couldn't. Why not spend money on medical research, such as finding cures for Cancer, etc. Why not spend the money, also, for developing effective alternate forms of energy? On and on and on.

 

[Integral]

Originally posted by timejim
Personally, at this stage in the chaos of the human race I am against spending monies on such useless projects as this. I mean, suppose they find that Mars is full of diamonds, or gold, or whatever, how on Earth could you ever get it back to earth? You couldn't. Why not spend money on medical research, such as finding cures for Cancer, etc. Why not spend the money, also, for developing effective alternate forms of energy? On and on and on.

As I posted above, minerals will not provide any economic advantage. But it may well be that there could be many medical advantages to zero gravity. (Our current high acceleration rockets are not absolutely necessary to space travel). And as far as energy goes it is essential that we establish our selfs in space that one thing that is readily available. All we need is improvements of photo-voltaic technology to make it possible. Of course for that resource it would make more sense to travel toward the sun rather then away.

Reliable rocketry could easily solve the problem of long term radioactive by products of nuclear power generation, you simply launch the materials into a decaying solar orbit.

It is undeniable that there are many reasons to develop space technology, just what role humans in space will play remains to be seen.

Perhaps the key reason for traveling into space will be tourism, and a lot of that will depend upon any advantages weightlessness will give to certain activities of humans.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Integral
As far as human Physiology goes, we have learned about all there is to learn from our years aboard Mir and and now SSI. As far as challenges and human bravado go, isn't there plenty of death wish heroics left on earth? Why should we spend billions so some wanta be hero can rocket to the surface of Mars, simply to repair his craft so he can return? Makes no sense. The men capable of doing any real science will be sitting on Earth receiving transmitted data whether it be gathered by a robot or a hero. The hero will add nothing to mission other then reducing the scientific payload.

We might stand to continue to learn from experiances in 1/6^th G physiologically speaking, but I would tend to agree with the idea of mining for exportation, probably not worth the price unless it is esoteric enough and cannot be made on the Earth.

As for the Bravado part I am not for that for it's own sake, but I do understand that 'Pioneers' have need of such, as being the first does require some Bravery...like it or not, and the ones who usually have a bit more of that, and therefore 'qualify', tend to be in that category of personality...

As for tourism perhaps 'Explorativism'...willing to learn, willing to go out peacably...means must have demonstrated the ability to control themselves...be at peace, especailly in GroUps...we cannot be the Agreesive insergent into space, an infection, in, and of, The agressions of life, cause life itself is aggressive, but humans can choose to not be ...